Glenn also wrote (later) as follows: "The problem with using other kinds of
measures of truth mean that we must allow for beliefs in all sorts of
things. If someone tells you that leprechauns exist we must allow it
because they can clearly claim that you can't apply this scientific
either/or concept because there are other types of truth. Those involved
in the New Age movement use exactly the same logic--they have a different
type of truth also. To me, the danger of not using the either/or concept is
that we must then agree that any sort of nonsense is within the realm of
possibility. What is to stop us from being
forced into accepting all sorts of nonsense?"

Glenn -- let me deconstruct the above. The two sentences of interest are
the last two:

"To me, the danger of not using the either/or concept is that we must then
agree that any sort of nonsense is within the realm of possibility. "

I'm not sure why this is a danger. I hold all knowledge to be provisional.
If a scientist wants me to accept the N-ray concept, provisionally, I say,
"OK. Let me see your evidence." He does; I am unpersuaded and we go from
there. He still may be right, but he has not established his case and I am
justified, at least for the present, to ignore it.

"What is to stop us from being forced into accepting all sorts of
nonsense?"

Precisely the above. I don't HAVE to accept N-rays. Nor little blue
invisible fairies. Nor many many other weird ideas that come across my
path. I don't EVER have to accept -- or reject them. I am free to ignore
them.

Glenn -- too often you pose questions as having only two possibilities of
resolution, when there are three -- or more. In my teaching as a Stephen
Minister, I frequently admonish my students not to "fall into the dyadic
trap." Mencken once said (I paraphrase) that to every question there is an
answer, short, concise, easy to understand and dead wrong. I'll restate
that as "to every question there are at least two answers, short, concise,
easy to understand and both dead wrong. There are, in addition, a host of
other answers, at least one of which MIGHT be somewhat correct."

You may quote me. Shoot -- someday I may quote myself! < G >

Glenn concludes by asserting: "But feelings don't tell us which of the two
religions is true----only objective data can do that."

And I'd observe that "objective data," if one limits that to "what science
can show," is powerless in that respect. I'd also observe that it is not
the "Christian religion" which is the key issue, but Jesus Christ himself.
I can think of no real scientific observation we can make in the 21st
century to verify his standing, not even as a thought-experiment.